Determinism

obsrvr524 · July 24, 2021, 8:50pm

What she is saying is that you have to remove all freewill and become totally communist in order to see the wonderful paradise to come - but not until ALL people give up ALL freedoms, rewards, and punishments. - give up all life and we can all know peace - because there will be no evil.

And yes - “a pig in a poke”. - exactly.

peacegirl · July 24, 2021, 9:21pm

What the hell?? Communist? Give up all freedoms? Where did you come up with this nonsense. It’s the polar opposite! You could not have concluded anything of the sort from this chapter. I hope you’re joking!

peacegirl · July 24, 2021, 9:28pm

phyllo:

He said this cannot be applied in a free will environment.

Well that’s inconvenient. Because that means it can’t be tested before you switch everything to the new environment.

And then if it doesn’t work as expected, you got problems …
A pig in a poke is a thing that is bought without first being inspected, and thus of unknown authenticity or quality. The idiom is attested in 1555:
I wyll neuer bye the pyg in the poke
Thers many a foule pyg in a feyre cloke
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_in_a_poke

It’s really no different than any mathematical equation or formula that is in its tentative or simulated form before applying it in a real life situation. For example, we went to the moon with the absolute confidence that the trajectory would get them where they wanted to go. And it worked because they used their accurate equations. This occurs all the time. We build bridges but the architects plan it beforehand to make sure the materials and structure can withhold a certain amount of weight and wear and tear. Same with airplanes. Yes, this is different only in the sense that we are not dealing with a physical object but the principles still apply. This knowledge is our trajectory to a better world that has nothing to do with communism or any kind of control.

phyllo · July 24, 2021, 9:33pm

You build the rocket components and test them on the ground. Then you assemble it and do unmanned tests. Then you do manned tests with a test pilot at the controls. Only after all those tests can you be confident that you have a rocket which will work.

That’s how you get to another planet.

peacegirl · July 24, 2021, 9:39pm

A simulation can help but it’s not the same thing as flying out of the earth’s atmosphere. There are many things that have to go right based on the best testing available but bottom line is that there is no other way to prove that they will arrive safely without accuracy in their equations.

peacegirl · July 24, 2021, 9:58pm

I hope there’s interest after reading chapter two. You have to be patient. There is a lot to cover.

iambiguous · July 28, 2021, 5:24pm

In Defense of Compatibilism: A Response to Edwards and Coyne
written by Ben Burgis at the quillette website

Yes! Defining free will and determinism and compatibilism into existence. You make an argument about Mary aborting her unborn baby/clump of cells and then insist that the truth of the argument is predicated entirely on how you define the meaning of all the words in it. Then if Mary asks if she is choosing an abortion of her own volition you ask her if she agrees with what you insist your own definition of the words used in the argument are and must be. And, if she doesn’t, the discussion of the actual abortion itself is put aside until there is a firm commitment on the definitions.

Interesting perhaps but first we are back to figuring out whether we are “free”, free or “free” to connect the dots between freedom and moral responsibility.

As though determinism as I “understand” it does not include defining things.

So, in regard to confronting Mary, unsure if she is able to freely opt to choose either abortion or birth, what do the compatibilists here among us “tell” her?

Pick one…

(a) freedom from coercion,
(b) some more sophisticated compatibilist definition of freedom, or
(c) contra-causal freedom

…and explain to Mary why you did.

If, as I understand determinism, the unborn baby/clump of cells [which above I called Jane] is aborted she was never going to not be aborted if in fact Mary “chooses” to abort her. And if Mary was never able to choose not to abort her, how can she be held morally responsible?

peacegirl · August 3, 2021, 1:14pm

iambiguous:

In Defense of Compatibilism: A Response to Edwards and Coyne
written by Ben Burgis at the quillette website

Responsibility and Punishment

The compatibilist conceptions of free will that have been discussed so far might strike some readers as silly and uninteresting redefinitions of free will. Coyne has certainly suggested as much elsewhere. According to this critique, “humans have free will if you define ‘free will’ in a compatiblist way” might be equivalent to saying, “God exists if you define the sum total of all material things that exist as ‘God.’” Any atheist worth his salt would respond to this by saying that in that sense God exists, but who cares? This simply isn’t the “God” whose existence is disputed by atheists.

Yes! Defining free will and determinism and compatibilism into existence. You make an argument about Mary aborting her unborn baby/clump of cells and then insist that the truth of the argument is predicated entirely on how you define the meaning of all the words in it. Then if Mary asks if she is choosing an abortion of her own volition you ask her if she agrees with what you insist your own definition of the words used in the argument are and must be. And, if she doesn’t, the discussion of the actual abortion itself is put aside until there is a firm commitment on the definitions.

This objection misses the point. The argument about whether to use the phrase “free will” to describe (a) freedom from coercion, (b) some more sophisticated compatibilist definition of freedom, or (c) contra-causal freedom might indeed be a matter of different thinkers talking past one another. Even the semantic argument about which one of these accounts best fits what ordinary speakers mean when they use the term is a matter of relatively limited interest. The question of which of these kinds of freedom is necessary for moral responsibility, however, is an extremely interesting question.

Interesting perhaps but first we are back to figuring out whether we are “free”, free or “free” to connect the dots between freedom and moral responsibility.

As though determinism as I “understand” it does not include defining things.

So, in regard to confronting Mary, unsure if she is able to freely opt to choose either abortion or birth, what do the compatibilists here among us “tell” her?

Pick one…

(a) freedom from coercion,
(b) some more sophisticated compatibilist definition of freedom, or
(c) contra-causal freedom

…and explain to Mary why you did.

If, as I understand determinism, the unborn baby/clump of cells [which above I called Jane] is aborted she was never going to not be aborted if in fact Mary “chooses” to abort her. And if Mary was never able to choose not to abort her, how can she be held morally responsible?

It’s so weird that in a philosophical thoughtful forum not one person responded to my posts. It’s just crazy.

iambiguous · August 3, 2021, 3:23pm

In Defense of Compatibilism: A Response to Edwards and Coyne
written by Ben Burgis at the quillette website

My point though [expressed over and again] is that what matters far more is that we cannot seem to pin down with any degree of finality whether what we think matters here in and of itself is merely the embodiment of the psychological illusion of free will imparted to us by a brain wholly compelled by the laws of matter sustaining the only possible reality or in fact it matters precisely because we can choose among actual options that it either does or does not.

And then the part where, given human autonomy, some insist others deserve to be punished for behaviors that still others insist they should be rewarded for. And the part where those like me argue that what we come to believe others deserve is not within the reach of philosophers or ethicists but instead is embodied only in subjective points of view rooted in dasein and ever subject to change given new experiences in a world awash in contingency, chance and change.

Here we go again. Yes, we can “choose” to justify punishing violent criminals. But only in the same way that men and women “choose” to become violent criminals in the first place: because they were never able not to. What’s deemed important or not important is no less subsumed in the only possible world.

The laws of nature that caused the plague are the same laws that cause some to get infected by it that cause others to isolate them. How, in a wholly determined universe, does anyone or anything become an exception?

That’s that part that [compelled or not[ eludes me.

Instead, arguments like this…

The problem with this line of thought is that it doesn’t seem to be capable of making sense of some of the most important modern ideas about how criminal justice systems should work. Consider Blackstone’s maxim that it is better for 10 guilty persons to go free than for one innocent person to be sent to prison. This is the moral calculation built into the “innocent until proven guilty” standard. But would we apply a parallel standard of evidence to quarantining plague victims? It’s hard to imagine a public health official reasoning that it’s better for 10 plague-ridden individuals to go around spreading the disease than for one uninfected person to be placed in quarantine. The idea that criminal punishment isn’t like this—that it is categorically wrong to punish the innocent—seems to rely upon a moral distinction that disappears when we say that no one is responsible for their actions.

…are made given what I presume to be the frame of mind that those who embrace free will would propose. Nothing is not made sense of other than as it can only be made sense of. Whether it’s human interactions involving crime or the plague doesn’t change that for me. The is/ought world of human value judgments is just another manifestation of the either/or world to nature. All the dominoes fall wholly in sync with nature’s “design”.

And yet clearly I have to acknowledge there are many very, very intelligent people who are able to think of compatibilism in a different way. So I would never rule out that the problem here is my own inability to grasp what they do about determinism.

Unlike, say, the objectivists here among us.

peacegirl · August 3, 2021, 3:46pm

iambiguous:

In Defense of Compatibilism: A Response to Edwards and Coyne
written by Ben Burgis at the quillette website

To see why it matters whether people are ever morally responsible for their actions, think for a moment about criminal punishment. The idea that at least some criminals deserve to be punished only seems to make sense if those criminals are morally responsible for their crimes.

My point though [expressed over and again] is that what matters far more is that we cannot seem to pin down with any degree of finality whether what we think matters here in and of itself is merely the embodiment of the psychological illusion of free will imparted to us by a brain wholly compelled by the laws of matter sustaining the only possible reality or in fact it matters precisely because we can choose among actual options that it either does or does not.

And then the part where, given human autonomy, some insist others deserve to be punished for behaviors that still others insist they should be rewarded for. And the part where those like me argue that what we come to believe others deserve is not within the reach of philosophers or ethicists but instead is embodied only in subjective points of view rooted in dasein and ever subject to change given new experiences in a world awash in contingency, chance and change.

The philosopher Derk Pereboom, a skeptic about free will, has argued that we can justify punishing violent criminals even if we don’t believe them to be responsible for their crimes. He uses the analogy of quarantining plague victims. It’s important to isolate them from the general population for the sake of public safety even though they don’t “deserve” to be locked up.

Here we go again. Yes, we can “choose” to justify punishing violent criminals. But only in the same way that men and women “choose” to become violent criminals in the first place: because they were never able not to. What’s deemed important or not important is no less subsumed in the only possible world.

The laws of nature that caused the plague are the same laws that cause some to get infected by it that cause others to isolate them. How, in a wholly determined universe, does anyone or anything become an exception?

That’s that part that [compelled or not[ eludes me.

Instead, arguments like this…

The problem with this line of thought is that it doesn’t seem to be capable of making sense of some of the most important modern ideas about how criminal justice systems should work. Consider Blackstone’s maxim that it is better for 10 guilty persons to go free than for one innocent person to be sent to prison. This is the moral calculation built into the “innocent until proven guilty” standard. But would we apply a parallel standard of evidence to quarantining plague victims? It’s hard to imagine a public health official reasoning that it’s better for 10 plague-ridden individuals to go around spreading the disease than for one uninfected person to be placed in quarantine. The idea that criminal punishment isn’t like this—that it is categorically wrong to punish the innocent—seems to rely upon a moral distinction that disappears when we say that no one is responsible for their actions.

…are made given what I presume to be the frame of mind that those who embrace free will would propose. Nothing is not made sense of other than as it can only be made sense of. Whether it’s human interactions involving crime or the plague doesn’t change that for me. The is/ought world of human value judgments is just another manifestation of the either/or world to nature. All the dominoes fall wholly in sync with nature’s “design”.

And yet clearly I have to acknowledge there are many very, very intelligent people who are able to think of compatibilism in a different way. So I would never rule out that the problem here is my own inability to grasp what they do about determinism.

Unlike, say, the objectivists here among us.

I’m not talking about compatibilism. There is no is/ought World so why bring it up? You did not read the chapter.

iambiguous · August 3, 2021, 3:49pm

Not to worry. It only seems weird because you were never able to not think that it feels weird.

Seriously though, from my own frame of mind, given my own assumptions about free will, you are an objectivist. And, for objectivists, whether in regard to either free will or evil, they simply cannot grasp why others don’t think exactly like they do about things like this.

After all, they might have invested years and years connecting the dots between what they think is true about morality and/or religion and/or the Big Questions and the psychological need to have a font that they can embed their Self in. For you, the author.

And I know this in part because this was once true of me. Twice in fact.

In other words, I know what is at stake here for you. Indeed, what for some is deemed to be their very “soul”.

My advice is this: if staying anchored to your own particular font is something you are intent on taking with you to the grave, steer clear of threads like this. Even if you started it. That way you won’t encounter points of view like mine.

Your “thing” in my view is analogous to the Mormons going door to door. It’s not enough for them to be saved. They must save others as well. So, you are committed to the author’s conclusions regarding the end of evil in the future. But you have convinced yourself that the more people you can lead to him here and now, the quicker that will happen. Or, rather, so it seems to me.

Unless as some suggest it actually is more about the book itself. The money.

But what do I know about that, right?

I’m just trying to offer you another frame of mind. One that in some ways makes things better, but that in other ways [admittedly] makes things a lot worse.

But I can only think what I do here and now given the possibility that I can think of my own free will what I do here and now.

Then “the gap”.

Meno2 · August 3, 2021, 4:02pm

Hate to just jump in periodically, but some ’ Thing’ compelled me.

I tend to agree with Peace girl here because I really believe that AI is really an evolutionary natural development of ‘consciously’ manifested progression, and this invention is really a phenominally necessary outgrowth of life in it’s most general sense.
It must have had pre-existence, at least in the sense of developmental sequencing of predetirementation, and it includes the illusion of free will’s antimony with It’s self.
Capitalization of IT becomes part and parcel of the evolutionary process, to exclude it into IT’s Own Domain, so as to sustain the illusion within credible rhetoric.

iambiguous · August 3, 2021, 4:34pm

Note to nature:

Okay, you win.

Meno2 · August 3, 2021, 5:09pm

I knew of Your concession ahead of time but it’s really no real concession until landing on solid ground. And even after that i’d be branded as a stooge, so let’s call it an uncertain draw without prejudice without formality

iambiguous · August 3, 2021, 5:40pm

We’ll need a context of course. Oh, and the assumption that we have the option to choose one of our own free will on a thread where here and now I have come to conclude that we don’t have this option at all.

Note to nature:

Did you do this on purpose? You know, teleologically?

Or, sure:

Really, try to imagine grasping a wholly determined universe able to result in these things:

peacegirl · August 3, 2021, 8:15pm

Iambiguous: Not to worry. It only seems weird because you were never able to not think that it feels weird.

Peacegirl: That doesn’t help at all. And it certainly doesn’t answer the question as to why. Your constant going back to this is the same old diversion.

Iambiguous: Seriously though, from my own frame of mind, given my own assumptions about free will, you are an objectivist. And, for objectivists, whether in regard to either free will or evil, they simply cannot grasp why others don’t think exactly like they do about things like this. After all, they might have invested years and years connecting the dots between what they think is true about morality and/or religion and/or the Big Questions and the psychological need to have a font that they can embed their Self in. For you, the author.

Peacegirl: You are so off base it’s a joke.

Iambiguous: And I know this in part because this was once true of me. Twice in fact.

Peacegirl: False comparison.

Iambiguous: In other words, I know what is at stake here for you. Indeed, what for some is deemed to be their very “soul”.

Peacegirl: Yes it is my soul but not for the reasons you give. You’re projecting.

Iambiguous: My advice is this: if staying anchored to your own particular font is something you are intent on taking with you to the grave, steer clear of threads like this. Even if you started it. That way you won’t encounter points of view like mine.

Peacegirl: This is not my first rodeo. Your point of view has nothing to do with the points made in this book. You didn’t read a drop. That explains a lot.

Iambiguous: Your “thing” in my view is analogous to the Mormons going door to door. It’s not enough for them to be saved. They must save others as well. So, you are committed to the author’s conclusions regarding the end of evil in the future. But you have convinced yourself that the more people you can lead to him here and now, the quicker that will happen. Or, rather, so it seems to me.

Unless as some suggest it actually is more about the book itself. The money.

But what do I know about that, right?

Peacegirl: Give me a break Iambiguous. This is not about money. And stop acting like you know it all but end with your signature disclaimer that you really don’t know. You got that right!

Iambiguous: I’m just trying to offer you another frame of mind. One that in some ways makes things better, but that in other ways [admittedly] makes things a lot worse.

But I can only think what I do here and now given the possibility that I can think of my own free will what I do here and now.

Then “the gap”.

No gap. No free will. Nada! This is a dead giveaway that you read nothing. What surprises me is the lack of interest in this subject from others, or that’s how it seems.

iambiguous · August 4, 2021, 5:26pm

peacegirl:

peacegirl:

It’s so weird that in a philosophical thoughtful forum not one person responded to my posts. It’s just crazy.

Iambiguous: Not to worry. It only seems weird because you were never able to not think that it feels weird.

Peacegirl: That doesn’t help at all. And it certainly doesn’t answer the question as to why. Your constant going back to this is the same old diversion.

Iambiguous: Seriously though, from my own frame of mind, given my own assumptions about free will, you are an objectivist. And, for objectivists, whether in regard to either free will or evil, they simply cannot grasp why others don’t think exactly like they do about things like this. After all, they might have invested years and years connecting the dots between what they think is true about morality and/or religion and/or the Big Questions and the psychological need to have a font that they can embed their Self in. For you, the author.

Peacegirl: You are so off base it’s a joke.

Iambiguous: And I know this in part because this was once true of me. Twice in fact.

Peacegirl: False comparison.

Iambiguous: In other words, I know what is at stake here for you. Indeed, what for some is deemed to be their very “soul”.

Peacegirl: Yes it is my soul but not for the reasons you give. You’re projecting.

Iambiguous: My advice is this: if staying anchored to your own particular font is something you are intent on taking with you to the grave, steer clear of threads like this. Even if you started it. That way you won’t encounter points of view like mine.

Peacegirl: This is not my first rodeo. Your point of view has nothing to do with the points made in this book. You didn’t read a drop. That explains a lot.

Iambiguous: Your “thing” in my view is analogous to the Mormons going door to door. It’s not enough for them to be saved. They must save others as well. So, you are committed to the author’s conclusions regarding the end of evil in the future. But you have convinced yourself that the more people you can lead to him here and now, the quicker that will happen. Or, rather, so it seems to me.

Unless as some suggest it actually is more about the book itself. The money.

But what do I know about that, right?

Peacegirl: Give me a break Iambiguous. This is not about money. And stop acting like you know it all but end with your signature disclaimer that you really don’t know. You got that right!

Iambiguous: I’m just trying to offer you another frame of mind. One that in some ways makes things better, but that in other ways [admittedly] makes things a lot worse.

But I can only think what I do here and now given the possibility that I can think of my own free will what I do here and now.

Then “the gap”.

No gap. No free will. Nada! This is a dead giveaway that you read nothing. What surprises me is the lack of interest in this subject from others, or that’s how it seems.

Either as a result of nature just doing its thing here or because I really am able to opt of my own volition to react as I do, I can only point out there is absolutely nothing here that we haven’t gone back and forth regarding over and over and over again.

From my own frame of mind, you are just another objectivist on steroids. Beyond repair. I can’t even imagine you not taking the comfort and the consolation the author provides you with all the way to the grave. It’s not what you believe, but that you believe it. It could anything: God, Buddha, Marxism, the Übermensch, Libertarianism, Anarchism, capitalism, socialism, a New Age narrative, existentialism, nihilism.

It’s the font itself that counts. The psychological foundation into which you can anchor your one True Self.

There’s just no way you will ever allow anyone to take that away from you.

Unless, of course, I’m wrong. But you can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge that you might well be too.

And, sure, to the extent that you can take this comfort and consolation with you all the way to the grave then, well, you win, right?

Settle for that. Why risk it in continuing on with me?

Of course: because you can “save” me. Bringing Evil itself that much close to being wiped out.

In this world!!!

peacegirl · August 4, 2021, 6:18pm

iambiguous:

peacegirl:

peacegirl:

It’s so weird that in a philosophical thoughtful forum not one person responded to my posts. It’s just crazy.

Iambiguous: Not to worry. It only seems weird because you were never able to not think that it feels weird.

Peacegirl: That doesn’t help at all. And it certainly doesn’t answer the question as to why. Your constant going back to this is the same old diversion.

Iambiguous: Seriously though, from my own frame of mind, given my own assumptions about free will, you are an objectivist. And, for objectivists, whether in regard to either free will or evil, they simply cannot grasp why others don’t think exactly like they do about things like this. After all, they might have invested years and years connecting the dots between what they think is true about morality and/or religion and/or the Big Questions and the psychological need to have a font that they can embed their Self in. For you, the author.

Peacegirl: You are so off base it’s a joke.

Iambiguous: And I know this in part because this was once true of me. Twice in fact.

Peacegirl: False comparison.

Iambiguous: In other words, I know what is at stake here for you. Indeed, what for some is deemed to be their very “soul”.

Peacegirl: Yes it is my soul but not for the reasons you give. You’re projecting.

Iambiguous: My advice is this: if staying anchored to your own particular font is something you are intent on taking with you to the grave, steer clear of threads like this. Even if you started it. That way you won’t encounter points of view like mine.

Peacegirl: This is not my first rodeo. Your point of view has nothing to do with the points made in this book. You didn’t read a drop. That explains a lot.

Iambiguous: Your “thing” in my view is analogous to the Mormons going door to door. It’s not enough for them to be saved. They must save others as well. So, you are committed to the author’s conclusions regarding the end of evil in the future. But you have convinced yourself that the more people you can lead to him here and now, the quicker that will happen. Or, rather, so it seems to me.

Unless as some suggest it actually is more about the book itself. The money.

But what do I know about that, right?

Peacegirl: Give me a break Iambiguous. This is not about money. And stop acting like you know it all but end with your signature disclaimer that you really don’t know. You got that right!

Iambiguous: I’m just trying to offer you another frame of mind. One that in some ways makes things better, but that in other ways [admittedly] makes things a lot worse.

But I can only think what I do here and now given the possibility that I can think of my own free will what I do here and now.

Then “the gap”.

No gap. No free will. Nada! This is a dead giveaway that you read nothing. What surprises me is the lack of interest in this subject from others, or that’s how it seems.

Iambiguous: Either as a result of nature just doing its thing here or because I really am able to opt of my own volition to react as I do, I can only point out there is absolutely nothing here that we haven’t gone back and forth regarding over and over and over again.

Peacegirl: You never addressed the points that are central to this knowledge.

Iambiguous: From my own frame of mind, you are just another objectivist on steroids. Beyond repair. I can’t even imagine you not taking the comfort and the consolation the author provides you with all the way to the grave. It’s not what you believe, but that you believe it. It could anything: God, Buddha, Marxism, the Übermensch, Libertarianism, Anarchism, capitalism, socialism, a New Age narrative, existentialism, nihilism.

Peacegirl: This response just shows me how you put anyone who makes a claim in the same basket.

Iambiguous: It’s the font itself that counts. The psychological foundation into which you can anchor your one True Self.

There’s just no way you will ever allow anyone to take that away from you.

Peacegirl: Why should I? How do you know the author was incorrect when you haven’t read a thing. What are you afraid of?

Iambiguous: Unless, of course, I’m wrong. But you can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge that you might well be too.

Peacegirl: I’m not caving in to you. His two principles are not wrong. What follows is not wrong. Why should I acknowledge that he could be wrong if he’s not. Again, you would not address Edison or Einstein this way. Just because his claim was not a physical object, epistemologically speaking, his observations were spot on and will be shown to be accurate. The FACT that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction is not circular. You’ve shown no interest in any of my content. Why are you even here?

Iambiguous: And, sure, to the extent that you can take this comfort and consolation with you all the way to the grave then, well, you win, right?

Settle for that. Why risk it in continuing on with me?

Of course: because you can “save” me. Bringing Evil itself that much close to being wiped out.

In this world!!!

Peacegirl: If your pride is so strong that you cannot even entertain the possibility that you might be wrong in your analysis of me (which you always preface but never truly believe), then please be on your way! There seems to be no interaction from other participants, so unfortunately this thread is going to die a premature death.

iambiguous · August 4, 2021, 6:33pm

Nature to Magnus Anderson:

It’s your turn.

iambiguous to nature:

Explain “premature death” please.

iambiguous · August 7, 2021, 5:13pm

On the other hand, if we live in a wholly determined universe in which the human brain is but one more inherent, necessary component of the only possible material, phenomenal reality, how are we not already nature’s machines?

Human intelligence is not artificial…it is natural.

Entirely natural?

Note to James S. Saint:

Clear this up for us please.